MR Jeffery Ostrovsky has alluded to my possibly entering the war that has been raging here on the Watershed blog site since its inception last year. Each time I sit down to begin writing my post, another fascinating post catches me off guard and I feel that it is my duty to keep abreast of the skirmishes, the troop movements, the supply chains and the outcomes of various battles – along with the different alliances that have been forged and broken during the conflict.
I have come to realize that perhaps my role is not to learn to read old manuscripts, or to enter the debate on the scholarly side – which can frankly seem daunting and result in feeling buried in minutiae. I am not devaluing the astounding work that my colleagues have done; rather, I would not wish to spoil their careful and dedicated research with my own haphazard and amateurish efforts were I to attempt a similar feat. Rather, my goal is to clarify and illumine what I believe exactly is at stake when we debate the rhythm in chant, and perhaps (boldly) in this article to summarize the arguments I have seen so far, and then in the future to show my belief to have a “sound pluriformity” is the most authentic way to go about renewing and restoring Gregorian chant as the liturgical music of the Roman Rite – as it is the way it has always been.
Before I lay out my musings on my own interpretation of chant, I shall first attempt to summarize the core arguments that each of the main authors in this blog series use. It is my sincere hope that each of the contributors sees, as in a mirror, their own reasoning reflected back – and in the spirit of authentic philosophy, I hope that several “steel men” form up into ranks before you “arrayed in battle.” 
Maestro Jeff Ostrowski • “Now according to the ordinance of his father David, he appointed the divisions of the priests for their service, and the Levites for their duties of praise and ministering before the priests according to the daily rule, and the gatekeepers by their divisions at every gate; for David the man of God had so spoken.” (2 Chronicles 8:14)
Jeff’s argument (I will be using first names – I find it easier and more organic to use) has rested primarily upon working out the relationship between the work of Dom Pothier and Dom Mocquereau and the wishes of the Holy See in promulgating an official book of the chant. I believe that Jeff has discovered a hitherto untapped interpretation of the chant in the original work of Dom Pothier. Rather than repeating his reasoning, I would ask the reader to reference Jeff’s articles on this. Here is the first one that lays it out fairly clearly, especially the paragraph labeled “Legislation.”
Once Jeff realized that most of the editions that are printed today (of which we are the most familiar) contain many edits from Dom Mocquereau that were not contained in Dom Pothier’s original work – he then turns to the officially promulgated Editio Vaticana by Pope Pius X. In the documents on the subject, we find that this book contains the officially promulgated rhythm of the church. Hence, Jeff argues from Papal decree that the original work of Dom Pothier contains the official rhythm of the church.
Maestro Patrick Williams • “Now go, write it on a tablet before them and inscribe it on a scroll, that it may serve in the time to come as a witness forever.” (Isaiah 30:08)
Patrick Williams is a champion of a method that has been used in recent times in the Church – what many theologians called “Ressourcement”, that is, a return to the authoritative sources. This desire has renewed much in theology in recent times, as theologians and scholars return to the Patristic and even Medieval writers with renewed vigor, rather than using textbooks, accounts, synopses, collections or commentaries to fuel research. The idea behind this method is to understand the text in its original context, and to separate it from the thinkers that put their own interpretation into the text.
For chant, which was largely an aural tradition that slowly developed a written method for transmission, Patrick argues for interpreting chant according to the most ancient and authoritative (read most accurate and closest to the original) manuscripts available. Thus, we might summarize as follows: the most authentic rhythm of the chant follows the original method in which the chant was executed. We find documents that date only a few hundred years (or in some cases are fully contemporary) to the composers and authors of these chants. Therefore, by following the indications in these texts, we can discover the closest approximation we can to a historically informed performance of chant. Then Patrick shows that there is ample evidence for what is called the proportional (or mensuralist) reading of the chant in these pages. This article of his deals with the core of his argument most directly.
Dr. Charles Weaver • “Therefore brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.” (2 Thessalonians 2:14)
We now turn to Dr. Weaver, who shows us another style of reading chant, which lies in the Solesmes camp. The Solesmes style of chant is a living tradition (meaning it has a succession of teacher-student/ master-apprentice relationships that can be traced back). As such, it is difficult to pin down exactly what it specifically asks of any given situation with any kind of “dogmatic” surety. (Hence the joke that there are as many different schools of chant as there are directors of chant…) Asking for a “Solesmes Chant Rules Handbook” (which probably does exist somewhere) would be akin to taking a photograph of a river and then saying, “that’s what this river looks like all the time, regardless of time of day, season, weather…”
Charles, to my reading, is not ‘arguing for’ a specific interpretation, but rather advocates getting to know authors who share a lineage and likeness of thought and training and seeing the chant through their interpretive lens. Once we grow familiar with the body of chant over time, we organically begin to interpret the chant from within the river of small ‘t’ tradition. This growth in familiarity comes from a teacher – hence we can in broad brush strokes paint Charles’s position thus: to learn chant from a teacher from a widely known and accepted school (Solesmes is the most universally known) by doing; then, you become immersed in that school’s interpretation through reading and reflection. Slowly, you work your way through in prayer the different works in the body of chant – the Solesmes method being a tether back to a living and dynamic tradition.
The use of the monastic (and correct me if I am wrong, specifically Benedictine) idea of ora et labora is fitting here – learn to sing chant by singing it under a teacher, then reflect upon your doing. Thus, (and Charles, let me know if I am way off!) looking again at his articles, there is very little “proscribing” of details in a given phrase. Rather we find an emphasis on interpretive principle of the whole work – which would determine the individual phrasing on a case-by-case basis. From one of his articles, here is Dr. Weaver’s words directly: “In terms of a Solesmes interpretation of a chant, the rhythmic signs drawn from paleography are not the most important thing.”
The Cheeky Part • So, we have three separate camps: Jeff (and the Lost Papal Decree); Patrick (and the Adventures of the Archivist); and Charles (and the Desert Sayings of Solesmes). I am aware that each of these positions can claim all three of the other’s primary positions: 1) “wait, the Church endorses my position!” 2) “My interpretation is based in ancient and authoritative manuscripts!” 3) “The school I ascribe to is a living tradition stretching back, and aides to prayer and authentic interpretation of the liturgical actions of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass!” I do not dispute this, but by summarizing the primary positions of each of the main contributors, I have tried to highlight the core of what makes their position so different from the others.
To avoid the TL;DR effect, I want to try to keep my articles concise, at least those of mine in the Gregorian Rhythm Wars series. I have a lot I plan on saying, but I will keep to “one topic” per article.
In my next article, I wish to lay out my own thoughts on interpretation of Chant, which relies heavily on my own experience and path of learning. Here is a teaser (from an unrelated source) for my next article:
Elliot Carter said in an interview: “I do feel that The approach that many music theorists have taken to composition is not a satisfactory one [….] All it does is tell you that the chords are this way and that, and that their inversions of different sorts and so forth, and I keep feeling that I would rather read theoretical articles that explain why it is that the work, when heard, captures our attention, and what is so valuable about it musically, and then show what it is that contributes to this experience. [emphasis mine] Now, it could be that at the present stage of musical analysis, it’s necessary to carry on the sort of detailed work that you allude to in the case of my sketches, but I’m not sure that it would produce a useful result.”
Bookmark: Gregorian Rhythm Wars contains all previous installments of our series.
